If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

villain2, you completely start to bore me with your smart*ss remarks.
It's all about opinions and about respecting other peoples opinions.
Something you got a little problem with I think.

My opinion:
I see the futurist style as a trend (amongst designers).
Contact any marketing firm in the world and none of them would consider futurist style as a great tool to sell, buy, promote products.

Don't get me wrong but there IS a market for that style.
And that market covers like 5% of total businesses.

So my question, WHY does 65% of all sites who are covering the sale of cartires, toothpaste and wooden logs have to bade in a futurist interface.
What does it add to the product except drowning it in useless, pointless details.

For your information, companies as flashlevel, 2A have been proven to not have the best marketing tools available.

Now quit your childish act and start discussing why we SHOULD use the futuristic style in every f*ckin site on the net.

Moron, I'm not saying every site should be futurist. It's good for entertainment sites and tech sites ... not good for ebay. Every site isn't ebay. Some sites like to sell their image, some sell their product. Futurist style is good for selling an image, basic style is good for selling product. I think I've said that three times now.

As far as adding to the product through actual graphics and what not ... well if that's the case that it doesn't add anything, all tv commercials should just have the product and the price and call it a day ... all print ads should just feature text detailing what the product is ... and all radio ads should have that guy that talks really fast with all the necessary info and not bog it down with that entertaining stuff. I mean, who ever heard of marketing brands, appealing to the senses or stimulating the "wow" factor?

Oh right, the web isn't at all about entertainment or promotion, it's just information.

And you can't use an estimated percentage and state it as fact. It's so pointless to go 65% of that and 25% of this when you have done zero statistical work on this subject.

This guy is developing a site for showing off animation and 3d work ... the question I have is WHY are there three of you going on and on about how this style isn't good when that's the audience he's going for!?

I have nothing against any other designer/company in the business.
What I meant by the above quote (partly misinterpreted because of my not so good english) was...

I think the problem with futuristic style is it comes forth from the work of FL, 2A and many more.
It has been copied and used by many other designers so badly it has become a webstandard these days.
But it has become a webstandard because of the wrong reasons. It did not become that because of all satisfied

costumers.
It came there because all of the worlds designers started copying their work without any thought of the original product in mind. (keep in mind, you design for future customers, not designers)

What I meant marketing-wise is, these days you're better of developing a non-futuristic (original) interface to get your product noticed
beside all the other same looking webcrap around there.

The fact you stood up and took it up for 'the futurist look' might had me a little carried away and started targetting you with my words.

IMO this is a discussion getting way out of hand because of the wrong reasons.

Well, it's a matter of whom someone chooses to listen to. For example, I rarely pay attention to movie critics because they have their own agenda and usually don't see what a movie is for what it is ... instead, they go for what they think all movies should be and try to judge an action movie on the merits of a period piece drama.

Same here.

You have an agenda, as evident by you supporting sense for "championing the cause". Why is there a cause? His site is obviously for 3D work and "wow" effects, not corporate marketing or auctions or mortgage brokering. It's for entertainment sites. It's for the "ooh, 3d" factor. Why be so against heavily designed, complex graphics or "futurists" as we're calling it now, sites? Let it go. Every site doesn't have to be just about content, some can be about eyecandy.

And good eye candy can go farther to enforce and establishing brand identity than text and background pages. I dare say most people here know what 2A's logo looks like because it's branded so well through their multimedia use.

I think your opinion of critics brings us to core of this argument in that you fail to see beyond your blinkered world and prefer to think that the web is indeed 'microfiche'. A be-all and end-all medium in its own right , not answerable to any reasonable argument and not prepared to listen to any.

Sure, most people here know what 2A's site looks like - half of them have ripped it.

I AGREE THAT THE NAVIGATION IS CONFUSING. I ALSO AGREE THAT SIMPLE SITES ARE BETTER FOR E-COMMERCE, BUT HE WANTS TO SHOW OFF HIS 3D AND FLASH SKILLS. SIMPLE SITES ARE GOOD WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED, BUT THIS IS AN ARTISTIC SITE.

ALL YOU JEALOUS PRIMITIVE CAVEMEN WHO THINK ALL WEBSITES SHOULD ONLY BE TEXT ON A PAGE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE 1990'S. THIS IS A NEW MILLENIUM, THE INTERNET IS EVOLVING, SO SHUT UP AND STOP TALKING $H!T CUZ YER JEALOUS OF ENIGMA'S TALENT.

ALSO PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT LOADING TIME CUZ YOU HAVE 56K, I HOPE YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR IT, 56K SHOULD ALWAYS BE FREE. IF YOU HAVE 56K, DON'T VIEW FLASH SITES! YOUR STILL LIVING IN THE PAST, SO STICK TO THE TEXT ONLY PAGES THAT SOME OF YOU SEEM TO LOOOVE SO MUCH. HONESTLY, 56K ISN'T WORTH THE TIME, FRUSTRATION, OR PATIENCE TO VIEW FLASH SITES. IF IT AIN'T FREE, PAY FOR BROADBAND INSTEAD.